Politics can not be conducted in ignorance of the history and culture of other nations.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Spitzer Makes History, Democrats Should Follow

In fulfillment of a campaign promise, newly elected Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York has proposed legislation to the New York State Assembly that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Though the prospects for passage of the bill are low even in a legislature controlled by Mr. Spitzer's own party, already he has made history by being the first governor to give the support of his executive office to this issue. In doing so the Governor shows remarkable courage and integrity, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that though it is inconsequential for President Bush to propose a constitutional amendment "defending marriage," it would be political suicide for any Democrat aspiring to executive office to champion the cause of same-sex marriage rights.

Eliot Spitzer has shown a way for Democratic candidates going into the election in 2008. "Wedge issues" such as same-sex marriage and reproductive freedom have fueled GOP electoral support for decades, and the conservative media have so dominated the national discourse on these topics that Democrats remain in perpetual retreat in these realms. When George W. Bush declares that he is willing to amend the constitution but Hilary Clinton or Jonathan Edwards or whatever other Democrat one cares to mention declares that s/he is for "civil unions" but against same-sex marriage the President looks like a person who has the courage of his convictions and Democrats look like intellectual and moral cowards.

Same-sex marriage and reproductive freedom are civil and human rights issues, they are concerned with securing for ourselves and our fellow citizens the liberties and protections promised to all Americans in the founding principles of our Republic. Opponents of these concerns may have a moral sensibility that deserves respect, but such respect should not extend to a dilution or repudiation of the profound philosophical and moral principles upon which the urgent advocacy of same-sex marriage rights and reproductive freedom rest. Relying on the courts to secure same-sex couples and women their civil rights is a failing strategy. History shows that the courts have been a regressive force as often as they have been a progressive force on issues of civil and human rights. Moreover, housing such concerns in the courts places a distorting strain on those institutions that they were never designed to sustain and that is harmful to our Republic in the long term.

I would urge all Democratic candidates in the upcoming election to follow Eliot Spitzer's lead. A bold advocacy of same-sex marriage rights and reproductive freedom would raise quite a hue and cry, and would no doubt energize the conservative base of the GOP. But at the same time it would cast the debate over these issues into clear terms and foreground them in ways that would bring out the real majority tenor of American public opinion. The next Democratic presidential hopeful should call for our Constitution to be amended to defend same-sex marriage rights in all fifty states and to permanently defend a woman's right to choose an abortion throughout the Union. Such a move might drive some conservative independents toward the GOP, but it would bring far more disenchanted liberals back to the fold who are tired of the moral equivocation of recent Democratic campaigns. Moreover, though a bold advocacy position might not achieve a constitutional change, it would demand a precise and logical debate on these issues that would deflate much of the obfuscatory rhetoric that has served the GOP so well. A genuine debate about these issues might just demonstrate to Americans on both the left and right that they are not quite as far apart on these issues as television and radio pundits make them out to be.

18 comments:

Let me say first that we share common ground, at least, on the desire for a "precise and logical" debate about these issues.

Since we're on the subject of obfuscatory rhetoric, though, may I ask precisely what you mean by the phrase "reproductive freedom"? And when you call for the "right to choose an abortion" to be enshrined in the Constitution, do you mean that you support an amendment ensuring the right to abortion on demand for the entire duration of a pregnancy?

May I also ask what empirical evidence you can point to for your claim that conservative media have dominated the discussion of these issues?

What do you mean when you say that a clear debate will bring out the "real majority tenor of American public opinion" on these issues? What exactly *is* the "real majority tenor" on these issues?

Finally, will a logical and precise debate require that the American public, and the candidates themselves, thoroughly understand that Roe v. Wade already guarantees that the U.S. has among the most liberal abortion laws in the world -- far more liberal, for instance, than almost every country in Western Europe? [I mention this because I think part of the obfuscation that surrounds discussion of these issues involves the creation of a misperception that America's abortion laws are somehow moderate and fairly restrictive.]

The meaning of "reproductive freedom" seems self-evident to me- the principle that all citizens, but especially women, should be as free as possible to choose how and under what circumstances they become parents. Protection of reproductive freedom entails curtailing attempts by the state to ban contraception and/or abortion. If you find this phrase "obfuscatory" that is your right, but it will remain my right to talk about these issues using language that reflects my deeply held convictions and values.

As for what protections I would see guarenteed by the Constitution, they conform to those generally understood as afforded by the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. In essence I would like to see the question of whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned rendered moot by having its central findings written unambiguously into our basic law.

My empirical evidence of "conservative media" dominance is the electoral timidity of the Democratic Party on these issues. This is a moot point that I really don't think is interesting to argue. Perhaps the timidity of the Dems is a cause rather than a symptom of conservative media dominance, I don't really care. I would just like the conversation in this country to change course.

Everything I've read about polls suggests that a majority of Americans oppose a ban on abortion. I don't think we can really know in pragmatic terms what the majority opinion of Americans is until candidates on both sides of the aisle bring these issues to the electorate in bold and unequivocal ways.

Sure, Americans should know what the relative climate of abortion law is throughout the world. It doesn't particularly surprise or trouble me that our abortion laws are more liberal than those of Europe.

You have the right to use whatever terms and phrases that you feel reflect your "deeply held convictions and values." When you proclaim that right, however, in the context of a complaint about the obfuscatory rhetoric of your political and ideological opponents, you can perhaps understand why one of those "opponents" might want to point out to you that the rhetoric that the "reproductive freedom" advocates choose is arguably as euphemistic and obfuscatory as the rhetoric of the G.O.P. (since I could say that I'm also a big advocate of reproductive freedom, except where that freedom clashes with other freedoms or rights that I deem more important).

Can you tell me what you mean by the "electoral timidity" of the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion? Is there a Democratic Presidential candidate, for instance, who *doesn't* firmly and vocally support women's "reproductive freedom?" And can you imagine a viable Democratic Presidential hopeful who *didn't* support such "freedom?"

Yes, a small majority of Americans oppose an outright ban on abortions, according to most polls. But Americans' opinions/feelings about this issue are much more complex than that bare statistic would indicate. A majority, according to polls, support bans on "partial birth abortions" and requirements for parental and spousal notification, for instance, and significant numbers of Americans think abortion laws should be more restrictive. I mention Americans' general ignorance about Roe v. Wade and abortion laws because I think it matters in this context. I would like to see a poll, for instance, about what percentage of Americans believes that overturning Roe v. Wade would mean that abortion was automatically criminalized. The lack of precision and ignorance about these issues are not problems that can be neatly packaged up and laid on the doorstep of "conservative media."

Of what, exactly, are you accusing me? Of sharing the opinions of people who use bad rhetoric? Guilty! What relevance does that have to what *I* have written? None. *Nowhere* in my post do I claim that the GOP are the sole purveyors of obfuscatory rhetoric on any issue.

Yes, most Dems support reproductive rights. Few will stand up and forcefully articulate this position on the campaign trail in an unequivocal way. Again, this is largely a matter of perception about which it is really not worth time arguing.

You could say you advocate reproductive freedom? Fine, say it. I could say (I do say) I am pro-life, as in my view banning abortion is an attack on those liberties that are basic to the value of human life. The fact that anyone can claim a rhetorical label says little.

I am aware of all the complexities of public opinion you mention, they do not contradict anything I have written. You are no doubt right that there is a great deal of ignorance about Roe v. Wade and the issues surrounding it. A national campaign to amend the Constitution would go far toward alleviating that situation, as it would raise the debate to the level of the actual issue rather than a byzantine and myopic squabble over the composition of the Supreme Court.

"Moreover, though a bold advocacy position might not achieve a constitutional change, it would demand a precise and logical debate on these issues that would deflate much of the obfuscatory rhetoric that has served the GOP so well."

-- I'm not sure how to read that, other than as a suggestion that obfuscatory rhetoric -- as opposed to the logical and precise language that will presumably arise in the wake of the Democrats' "bold" stance on these issues -- is uniquely well-suited to the G.O.P. position.

Look, if the point of this post was simply to say that the presidential candidates should follow Spitzer's lead in supporting same-sex marriage, that's all well and good. On the way to that point, however, you made a couple of claims about the state of national discourse that seem to me to be highly arguable (or, as you say, a "matter of perception"), but you made those claims as though they were somehow uncontroversial conventional wisdom. I don't think it's at all clear, in the case of abortion, either that a) the conservative media have dominated the discussion of this issue, or b) obfuscatory rhetoric has served the G.O.P. any better than it has served the "pro-choice" crowd.

I would submit, for instance, that the abortion advocates have the Democratic Party in an absolute stranglehold on this issue, since I can't imagine a viable "pro-life" Democratic Presidential candidate, but I *can* imagine a viable "pro-choice" Republican candidate (Giuliani). In the end, I don't think your characterization of the abortion issue as dominated by conservative media is *entirely* a matter of perception; I think it's wrong. You're correct that we could argue back and forth about evidence and perceptions, but given that situation, why make the claim in the first place?

Furthermore, while I certainly would like, for my own reasons, to see Clinton and Obama following Spitzer's bold stance, I can't agree with your assessment of the likely political fallout of such a move. Spitzer's "courage" is a luxury that candidates who are running a national election simply don't have, since they must be worried about appealing, or pandering, not only to New York, but also to the South and the Midwest. In other words, your assessment ignores the fact that the kind of political courage that would be required of Clinton or Obama in taking such a bold stance is actually much greater and much riskier than the kind of courage displayed by Spitzer.

"A national campaign to amend the Constitution would go far toward alleviating that situation, as it would raise the debate to the level of the actual issue rather than a byzantine and myopic squabble over the composition of the Supreme Court."

-- Again, I see no reason why this should be the case, for a couple of reasons:

1) Since the state of pulic discourse about any highly charged social issue is, for the most part, extraordinarily degraded, I see no reason to assume that it would be magically elevated in the case of a national campaign to enshrine abortion in the Constitution.

2) You seem to assume that the only time the issue of abortion gets discussed in the public square is in the context of squabbles over the composition of the Supreme Court. That's just not the case.

You do acknowledge that advocacy of a Constitutional amendment granting abortion rights to women would energize the anti-abortion forces, but I'm not sure whether you give the force of that "energizing" its proper due, nor do you consider that the issue of such a debate is just as likely to be greater divisiveness and rancor. In fact, the only hope I see for a less rancorous resolution to the abortion debate is the overturning of Roe v. Wade and letting federalism take its winding course.

"Look, if the point of this post was simply to say that the presidential candidates should follow Spitzer's lead in supporting same-sex marriage, that's all well and good."

This is the point, Kate Marie. Which forces me to ask, what is the point of anything you have written above? All of your criticisms amount to chasing red herrings. I made claims which I present as *my* analysis of the political situation, if you read me as characterizing the "conventional wisdom" that is purely your inference, and is really, really, REALLY not worth arguing about.

As to whether advocates of reproductive freedom have a "stranglehold" on the Democratic Party, this is not a question over which I lose sleep. Saying so is, from my perspective, the equivalent of saying that anti-slavery advocates had a "stranglehold" on the Republican Party circa 1860. I assert that the conservative media has dominated discourse on reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage rights because I want Democrats to reorient their perceptions and act with the courage of their convictions.

"In other words, your assessment ignores the fact that the kind of political courage that would be required of Clinton or Obama in taking such a bold stance is actually much greater and much riskier than the kind of courage displayed by Spitzer....You do acknowledge that advocacy of a Constitutional amendment granting abortion rights to women would energize the anti-abortion forces, but I'm not sure whether you give the force of that "energizing" its proper due, nor do you consider that the issue of such a debate is just as likely to be greater divisiveness and rancor. In fact, the only hope I see for a less rancorous resolution to the abortion debate is the overturning of Roe v. Wade and letting federalism take its winding course."

I ignore nothing, Kate Marie. I am well aware of the amount and degree of anti-abortion sentiment in this country. I am also aware of the amount and depth of feeling in support of reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage rights. Your assertion that an overturning of Roe v. Wade would lead to a "less rancorous resolution" to the debate over reproductive freedom seems to rest on the assumption that depth of feeling is less intense on one side than the other. I for, one, would no more want to live in a Union in which abortion was comprehensively banned in some states and not in others than I would want to live in a nation in which slavery was permitted in some states and not others. For those of us who advocate reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage rights, they are exactly the kind of human rights that the Federal government exists to protect, and there should be no place in the Union where those human rights should be denied. If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned the campaign for a Constitutional amendment won't be the crackpot idea of a crazy blogger, it will be a political reality.

Now advocacy of a Constitutional amendment might cost a Democratic candidate the election, but I suspect that this is one of those perceptions that has been kept stoked by the conservative media. I don't think that there is enough support for an amendment throughout the nation for it to actually pass just now, but I do not think that this issue would bleed a Democratic candidate of support that s/he might otherwise have garnered. Those who would vote anti-Democrat on this issue *alone* already belong to the 20-some-odd percent of people who still feel that George W. is doing a great job, and those people are never going to vote Democratic. The habitual non-voters who might rally to the polls on this issue probably balance out on either side of the issue. Among independents and voters for whom these issues are a low priority a Democrat would pick up some support for displaying integrity and lose some for championing unpopular issues, but I am willing to bet that the former would outweigh the latter.

"This is the point, Kate Marie. Which forces me to ask, what is the point of anything you have written above? All of your criticisms amount to chasing red herrings. I made claims which I present as *my* analysis of the political situation, if you read me as characterizing the "conventional wisdom" that is purely your inference, and is really, really, REALLY not worth arguing about. "

-- If that is the point, Madman, then I am in turn forced to ask why it took several paragraphs and an analysis of the state of political discourse to make it. I'm simply pointing out that some of the assumptions upon which your political analysis is based are, in my opinion, wrong, and are in any event asserted as though they were fact. Since you seem to be concerned about distorted and misleading rhetoric, I don't understand what *you* don't understand about my objection -- which is that your paean to logical and precise discourse makes some rather sketchy and imprecise claims.

"I assert that the conservative media has dominated discourse on reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage rights because I want Democrats to reorient their perceptions and act with the courage of their convictions. "

-- But what are their convictions, exactly? Why not assume that people like John Edwards and Barrack Obama and former pro-lifers like Jesse Jackson and Al Gore have some moral qualms about abortion on demand that is reflected in their "timid" rhetoric (about which I'll just have to take your word, since you've provided no evidence of the timidity of Democratic rhetoric about abortion)?

And again, I'm not sure what Democrats "reorienting their perceptions" has to do with the assertion that the conservative media has dominated discourse on abortion. Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether that assertion is actually true as long as it's politically useful?

"Now advocacy of a Constitutional amendment might cost a Democratic candidate the election, but I suspect that this is one of those perceptions that has been kept stoked by the conservative media."

-- But could you give me some examples of the way the conservative media stokes this perception?

In any event, I think you're failing to take into account the electoral college aspect of national elections, which is what my assessment was based on. The people who vote on this issue alone are never going to vote Democratic, certainly, but they don't always vote either. My prediction is based on *my* suspicion that this issue will energize the conservative base in the so-called purple states of the Midwest enough to tip the balance of the election toward the anti-Constitutional Amendment candidate. Those who will be energized pro (in the Northeast and left coast) and con (the South) are not going to have any effect on their particular state's electoral college representatives.

Let me modify a statement of yours to articulate my own feelings:

"I for, one, would no more want to live in a Union in which the taking of innocent human life was permitted in some states and not in others than I would want to live in a nation in which slavery was permitted in some states and not others. For those of us who advocate against killing human beings, the right to life that we believe human beings in the earliest stages of their development (and in the final stages of dementia) enjoy is exactly the kind of h uman right that the Federal government exists to protect, and there should be no place in the Union where those human rights should be denied."

It's kind of chilling and sad to contemplate where our respective positions lead, Madman -- which is, figuratively at least, to one of us wearing blue and one wearing gray.

I'm sorry if my prose doesn't meet your standards of succinctness, nonetheless I've made my point in this post in fairly short order. As for my assumptions being "wrong," all I can see you offering in return are your own assumptions, and you have no proof that they are more correct than my own.

I'll give you an anecdote to further clarify my point. In the 2004 election during a "town hall meeting" format debate one audience member put this question to Kerry, "How can you guarantee that none of my tax dollars will fund abortions." Instead of answering, "I can't," and explaining what I deem to be the central conviction of those of us who support reproductive freedom- that it is a human right- Kerry became a sputtering, self-censoring, and inarticulate clown. Kerry is admittedly prone to this type of rhetorical debacle, but I have seen it repeated again and again with Democratic officials and candidates addressing the issue of reproductive freedom in the public forum.

By contrast, I am very aware of the position that you so eloquently articulate in rewriting my paragraph (and which I respect, despite vehemently disagreeing with it), and I think most other Americans are too. I see these views being expressed by Republican officials and candidates in the public forum all the time. This is my basis for claiming that the conservative media dominates the discourse on the issue- I am not propounding some kind of conspiracy theory, I am only stating my observation of the messages being carried by the public discourse. By my admittedly anecdotal reading, a full-blooded and substantive articulation of your views is being propounded in the public square, my convictions are being articulated only obliquely and through the prism of self-censorship. I would like this state of affairs to end.

As for your premonitions of civil war, I think you take a very pessimistic view. Undoubtedly there are people on both sides of this issue that would resort to violence, but I do not believe that there is a critical mass large enough to engender a secessionist crisis. All that is required to forestall violent conflict is a respect for the integrity of our national institutions and a commitment to non-violent political action, and I don't see a crippling deficit of either resource in our Republic today.

The only assumption I've offered in return for yours (i.e. that the "conservative media" controls discourse on abortion and that obfuscatory rhetoric apparently uniquely serves the G.O.P. on this issue) is that your assumptions are unsubstantiated and probably false. I didn't make an analysis in a blog post that relied, at least in part, on those assumptions.

Your anecdote about Kerry is interesting, but all it proves is that Kerry, in that instance, was bumbling and inarticulate about his views. I don't see how you get from there (a question by a non-journalist member of the public) to the vise grip of conservative media.

To be honest, I think part of the problem with Kerry's position, and with the position of many other advocates of "reproductive freedom," is that it involves some logical inconsistencies from the get-go -- i.e., "I personally believe abortion is the immoral taking of a human life, but I don't believe I can impose my morality on others." It's the only instance I can think of where it is argued that either a) the definition of "human life" or "personhood," or b) the justification for killing a human being should be left to the individual conscience. [Rudy Giuliani takes this view, too, as far as I know, and I like it no better coming from him.]

That your convictions are being "articulated only obliquely and through the prism of self-censorship" proves nothing about *why* that is the case. Why do you assume, for instance, that every Democratic candidate who sounds mealy-mouthed about abortion is exercising self-censorship rather than perhaps unwittingly expressing an ambivalence about the rather extreme position they are required to take in order to be a viable Democratic presidential candidate?

My civil war allusion was figurative. I'm not suggesting that people on either side will resort to violence (not in large numbers, anyway), but that a constitutional amendment of the kind that you advocate -- or at least one that had any chance of success -- may very well engender a "secessionist crisis." Abortion is the single issue about which I can imagine such a scenario. That's why I don't understand the rhetoric about overcoming divisions at the end of your original post. I don't necessarily hold out much hope for the federalist solution on abortion, since it could mean that the U.S. simply goes the way of the Groningen protocol, but I do think the drive for a consitutional amendment will simply polarize and harden positions the way that Roe v. Wade already has.

I think you are having trouble counting your assumptions. You keep assuming, despite my protests, that I am arguing definitively for a particular causal connection between conservative media dominance of these issues and Democratic equivocation. The latter may well be the cause of the former, as I said earlier, this does not change my basic observation. From my perspective conservative media dominance is a *fact* because only the conservative side of the issue is being given full-blooded articulation in the public square.

Another assumption you make is that Democratic equivocation rooted in personal ambivalence about reproductive freedom has equal explanatory value alongside calculations of what will generate a mathematical effect in the electoral college. The deafening silence on the basic principles of reproductive freedom from Democratic candidates suggests to me that they are shying away from offending certain marginal constitutiencies that conventional wisdom gives credit for the victories of George W. Bush. If this were not the case, surely there should be one candidate who is uncomplicated enough about his/her political stance to stand up and give a robust defense of its basic moral and philosophical principles. Show me a speech in which a major Democratic candidate declares openly to a non-partisan (or mixed partisan) audience that reproductive freedom is a non-negotiable human right and I might concede that my characterization of the national discourse is flawed.

As to whether advocacy of reproductive freedom is an "extreme view" or whether its advocates are logically conflicted, here we have to agree to disagree. I sympathize (though I disagree) with those who believe that abortion is always the immoral taking of a human life, but I don't see the holding of this conviction and an advocacy of reproductive freedom as being different in kind from holding the beliefs that to eat pork or draw a picture of Mohamed or eat any animal product is immoral and yet advocating that these views not be enforced by the *state*. You are wrong that abortion is the only issue on which the questions you indicate come into play. Euthanasia involves identical issues. The death penalty implicates isomorphic concerns. I personally believe that there are instances in which the taking of human life is justified, I don't believe that it should be part of the state penal system.

If abortion is the single issue on which you can imagine a "secessionist crisis" your horizons are pretty narrow. In any case I feel that amending the Constitution, or at least entertaining a debate about it, would help overcome divisions by

1)Potentially saving our judicial system from partisan wrangling that in the long term will undermine faith in the courts and erode one of the main pillars of civil society;

2)Demonstrate to advocates of reproductive freedom that not all "pro-life" advocates are bigoted fanatics, but that many are deeply thoughtful and logical people motivated by profound moral sensibilities, and to opponents of reproductive freedom that not all "pro-choice" advocates are depraved libertines or purveyors of pernicious moral relativism, but that many are thoughtful and logical people who adopt the position they do out of profound moral and philosophical conviction.

Perhaps you are right that the "degraded" state of public discourse would preclude #2 from bearing fruit. I think, however, that you underestimate the collective intellectual faculties of the American public. I attribute the degradation of public discourse principally to an unwillingness on the part of leaders to address issues forthrightly and unequivocally for fear of political repercussions. If the stakes are made high enough and the issues addressed directly I believe that the American people will rise to the level that the bar is set.

"From my perspective conservative media dominance is a *fact* because only the conservative side of the issue is being given full-blooded articulation in the public square."

-- It seems to me a "fact" is a "fact" no matter whose perspective it comes from. I don't perceive the domination of discourse that you claim. Does that mean that from my perspective it's a "fact" that the conservative position does *not* dominate public discourse on this issue? Didn't Pat Moynihan say something like "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

"Show me a speech in which a major Democratic candidate declares openly to a non-partisan (or mixed partisan) audience that reproductive freedom is a non-negotiable human right and I might concede that my characterization of the national discourse is flawed."

-- This statement assumes that the belief in "reproductive freedom" as a non-negotiable human right is a non-extreme position without actually defining the phrase "reproductive freedom" with any specificity. Here's the definition you gave me: ". . . the principle that all citizens, but especially women, should be as free as possible to choose how and under what circumstances they become parents. Protection of reproductive freedom entails curtailing attempts by the state to ban contraception and/or abortion." Can you tell me what this means practically? Does it mean abortion on demand for the entire length of a pregnancy? To my mind, that's an extreme position (and it seems to be an extreme position based on all the polls I've seen), and I wouldn't expect any but an essentially non-viable, extremist candidate to advocate it.

"You are wrong that abortion is the only issue on which the questions you indicate come into play. Euthanasia involves identical issues. The death penalty implicates isomorphic concerns. I personally believe that there are instances in which the taking of human life is justified, I don't believe that it should be part of the state penal system. "

-- No, unless I am forgetting something, I am decidedly not wrong. I didn't say that abortion is the only issue where these concerns come into play. I said that abortion is the only issue where people argue that a working out of these concerns (what constitutes personhood, murder, justifiable homocide, etc.) should be left to the *individual* conscience. Our laws do not allow euthanasia, and nobody argues that people should be able to decide on their own who merits a mercy killing and who doesn't. Our laws permit killing in self defense, but they do not permit each individual citizen to define self-defense for themselves. Our laws permit the death penalty (which I oppose), under circumstances prescribed by our laws, but they do not permit individual citizens to define according to their individual conscience what constitutes the "death penalty" and how it should be administered. Could you point to any public policy or law that allows *individuals* to define for themselves what constitutes a person and under what circumstances the individual himself is justified in killing a person?

Banning abortion is different in kind from banning pork because its "concerns" have to do with a principle (the law against murder) that is *already* uncontroversially enshrined in our laws. When someone eats pork, a Muslim or a Jew may be morally offended by that private choice, but they cannot reasonably argue that a person is being denied the right to life because of that private choice.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the capacity of a debate on a constitutional amendment to change the state of public discourse. Why, though, do you seem to assume that this debate hasn't already been taking place for the past thirty five years?

I forgot one additional point. Why would the implementation of a Constitutional amendment save our judicial system from wrangling, partisan or otherwise? It's precisely the thorny constitutional issues which the courts are supposed to decide. That's what they do. Do you imagine that enshrining the right to "reproductive freedom for all citizens, but especially for women" wouldn't engender *lots* of cases and challenges . . . for instance, does the right to reproductive freedom for all citizens, along with the 14th amendment, require that men have a *greater* say in abortion decisions? Does the right to reproductive freedom (women being "as free as possible" to decide how and under what circumstances they will become parents) allow infanticide in some circumstances? I see nothing but more of the same under a constitutional amendment of the kind you support.

Demanding further clarification from me about what I mean by "reproductive freedom" is ridiculous, refer to my comments upthread for your answer.

Again, show me a Democratic campaign speech in which a robust defense of the moral and philosophical justifications for reproductive freedom are outlined and I will concede that my notion of "conservative media dominance" of the issue is incorrect. I assure you I can find speeches by Repubican officials and candidates in which the "pro-life" position is fully articulated. This demonstrates that the messages carried by the conservative media have a public voice, the messages on the side of reproductive freedom do not. Your suggestion that my views are too extreme to deserve public articulation hardly constitutes an argument. You are simply avoiding the challenge of providing empirical basis for your position.

You are wrong that abortion is the only issue in which questions of personhood are left to individual conscience, in that as a matter of principle the current law does not leave the question of whether or not the fetus is a person to individual conscience. According to current law the fetus is not a person, killing it is not a crime. A mother who does view the fetus as a person is no more a criminal than one who does not in the eyes of the law. The question surrounding abortion is not what individual conscience should deem a person or a human being, but what the state should. Issues like euthanasia and DNR protocols require identical legal determinations about questions of humanity, personhood, etc. and likewise do not require that individual conscience be consulted.

If you want another issue that is analogous to that of reproductive freedom in "hav[ing] to do with a principle that is *already* uncontroversially 'enshrined' in our laws," Prohibition would be one. Our law uncontroversially bans substances like marijuana and cocaine, but allows the regulated use of alcohol. If you begin to tease apart the reasons why we live with the curren state of the law you will find that many of them map out quite exactly onto those underlying the question of reproductive freedom.

A constitutional amendment would help save the judicial system from partisan wrangling because any greater degree of specificity in the written law aids the justices in their jurisprudence. The situation right now makes people feel that the status quo (or a change to it) hinges upon "judicial fiat," creating a sense of unfairness and resentment at the institution of the court. Encoding the principal of reproductive freedom as a matter of basic law would hopefully create, even for opponents of reproductive freedom, a sense that the current state of law was the product of fair democratic processes.

If you don't want to provide greater specificity as to the meaning of the term "reproductive freedom" that you would like enshrined in the Constitution -- including whether it means abortion on demand for the entire length of a pregnancy -- I can assure you that constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court justices will be attempting to provide their own specific interpretations somewhere down the line. So much for precision of language, I guess.

Can you show me where the notion that the fetus is not a person has been encoded in law? Is it contained in Roe v. Wade, for instance? Or are you merely arguing that the fetus is de facto not a person because the state -- per a Supreme Court decision which, as far as I remember, makes no determination about the personhood of the fetus - allows it to be killed?

"A constitutional amendment would help save the judicial system from partisan wrangling because any greater degree of specificity in the written law aids the justices in their jurisprudence."

-- But you have already declined to provide any greater degree of specificity or clarification of the "reproductive freedom" you wish to enshrine in a Constitutional Amendment. I've already thought of hypotheticals based on which men could fight to have greater say in abortion decisions (or to release themselves from financial obligations to the children their partners decided to have when the men themselves preferred an abortion), women could challenge arrests/convictions for infanticide and child abandonment, etc. All of the issues that would arise from the right to "reproductive freedom" as you have defined it would, in my opinion, do little or nothing to ameliorate the current rancor and bitterness of the abortion issue.

If you can not remember the answer to a question once it is given, I don't feel obligated to repeat it for you. Again, look for your specificity upthread.

Roe v. Wade precludes any law from being effected to ban abortion before a fetus is "viable," so yes, under the precedents established by Roe v. Wade the fetus is not a person.

As for hypotheticals about how a man could make greater demands upon a woman based upon *my* definition yada yada yada..Oh, please. Chasing your interlocutor around a logical mulberry bush may be fun for you, Kate Marie, but frankly it is a bit tiresome. I really don't intend to have a grand debate with you about abortion law or ethics, I have too much respect for your intellect and sense of moral conviction than to believe that I am ever going to change your opinion. Please extend me the same courtesy. If you don't trust that I've thought through my own principles on this issue to be confident of their internal logical consistency (more logical consistency than can be conveyed in short burst blog comment threads), you don't know me very well.

Look, Madman, apparently I've touched a nerve here, and for that I sincerely apologize. I have great respect for *your* intellect and *your* sense of moral conviction on this issue. I want to assure you, though, that I wasn't under the impression that I could change your opinion about abortion, and I do trust that you've thought through your principles enough to be confident of their logical consistency. I merely thought that perhaps you hadn't thought through some of the claims and assumptions of your blog post -- which is a different thing entirely.

Anyway, the monkey hereby retires from the comments on this post and leaves the field to the weasel.

The nerve you touched is my impatience with reductio ad absurdum arguments. Your persistent demands for "specificity" about my "definition" of reproductive freedom are meant to illustrate what? I could come up with a very clear and logical explanation for why your hypotheticals are not meaningful but I won't, because,

1)You and I are not making law, so there is really, REALLY very little point;

2)Whether or not I can answer any or all of your logical objections to my rhetorical labels has little bearing on whether I am justified in using them. I can play Socrates to your Gorgias with any label you care to mention too, Kate Marie, it really doesn't signify much.

What else is ultimately at stake here, Kate Marie? Have I drafted a camera-ready copy of a proposed Constitutional amendment? No. Let me go to law school, then spend five or six more years studying the legal history and jurisprudence surrounding Roe v. Wade and I'll get back to you. In the meantime I feel perfectly qualified as a well-read, thoughtful concerned citizen to talk intelligently about the idea of a Constitutional amendment in the abstract.

I notice that you have not proposed one obvious point, that a Constitutional amendment banning abortion (stipulating ALL of the complexities of timing, exigent circumstances, health concerns etc. etc. had been worked out) would serve the same purposes of stabilizing and securing the judiciary that my proposed amendment on reproductive freedom would. I wonder would you advocate such an amendment (not in the abstract, but as a campaign position right now), and if no why not.

Subscribe To

Followers

Publications

About Me

After living in mainland China and Taiwan for four years and in Japan for one year I returned to the U.S. and earned a doctoral degree in Chinese history, which I teach at a college in New York. "Madman of Chu" reflects my belief that the study of the history and culture of other nations is indispensible to the conduct of modern politics. "Marriage Equality Amendment" is devoted to amending the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry.